Read about it here: http://tinyurl.com/dbrx8r
Summary, if you didn't click the link, Warner is offering films from the vault going back to the 20s not previously available as on demand downloads and made to order DVDs. I have to wonder what's taken them so long, but whatever. It's a good idea at any rate.
Except the downloads won't play on Mac, which leads me to believe they're going to be WMV files DRM encumbered with Microsoft's Plays For Sure. And they'll cost you $15 for the privilege. Want a DVD? It's $20.
I feel like a broken record but, here's another example of just not getting it. The idea, while good, is a bit late. They may think these films are "unarchived" but it's really not that difficult to find tons of "unarchived" movies for free online, if you're not troubled by the legality of it.
In a time when even the control freakish record labels are finally realizing DRM doesn't work, they're bringing out something with it? And, naturally, they've chosen the path which excludes Apple users, who I know are a minority. But they're a minority with money.
And $20 for what I'm assuming is going to be a bare bones DVD might have flown five years ago, but it isn't acceptable today. DVD prices are in the tank and you can get new Blu-Ray releases for $20. While I recognize there's additional cost with to order type services, Something Weird Video has their to order DVDs priced around $8-$10, which is a much more reasonable cost.
So, once again, I'm finding myself writing close, but no cigar. Sometimes I feel like one of those people who just won't be satisfied no matter what. It just irritates me to see time and time again when these companies do something that they should have been done ages ago, but make mistakes so obvious and then complain about how it didn't work and piracy is ruining everything etc., etc. It's especially irritating because, with something like this, I really think it could work, but not the way they're going to do it.
I'll still be interested to see what films they offer up and how long they keep at it. But this also goes back to the "too little, too late" thing because I really can't think of too much from the WB vaults I'd want to see that I couldn't get my hands on if I wanted. Maybe for the people who are as resourceful as I am, this will be a great thing. Who knows?
Showing posts with label DRM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DRM. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
DRM free at last...but wait...
I'm sure you've heard by now, but the iTunes Music Store is finally going all DRM free with higher bitrates and variable pricing. As always the case, there's good and bad here, though for me I'm seeing more bad and indifferent than good.
First off, it's a good thing that Apple and the rest of the majors finally got past their logjam to offer all the tracks DRM free. Nice to see Apple finally catch up with the rest of the world, even if they still are offering tracks in their proprietary AAC format (no surprise) which not all media players support.
Then there's the mixed blessing of variable pricing. The way things were worded, it's implied that most of the catalog will be going to 69 cents a track. New releases are scheduled to stay at 99 cents and might go as high as $1.29 a track. I see this as a mixed blessing at best.
The lower price on the back catalog only makes sense, but the higher price on new releases strikes me as an attempt to break the 99 cents standard, which the majors have been trying to do for ages. We'll see if this higher price rolls out in Amazon and other stores. Since Apple is going to be at a disadvantage here if everyone else is selling new tracks thirty cents cheaper, I can't imagine they'd have agreed to this unless that was in the plans.
Now, like last time, Apple is making the option to "upgrade" your old iTunes purchases that are now iTunes Plus...for a fee. That fee is 30 cents a track. Although this may affect a small number of people, this is the part of the plan that really irritates me.
OK, I know there's no upgrades given or implied with iTunes Music Store purchases. I get that. However, there is a prescient for free upgrades. When some of the other stores converted from DRM encoded WMA files to mp3, users were given tracks in the new formats. To be fair, there's a slight difference here; the WMA files would be useless once the DRM servers were turned off. But, that was a risk the user was expected to assume, yet after the outcry, they were switched over for free as an act of goodwill.
Let's look at the money here. Assuming you paid 99 cents a track, adding the 30 cents upgrade puts you at $1.29. Now, we've also learned that most of the catalog is supposed to drop to 69 cents. If you upgrade your tracks, you've just about paid double for them, based on the information that back catalog is going to drop in price.
The most infuriating thing is that, once again, the upgrades are presented in an "all or nothing" form. Meaning, to upgrade that out of print Quincy Jones album I really like, I'm also going to have to pay 30 cents a pop to upgrade dozens of tracks don't want. While I can at least see where the upgrade fee is coming from, forcing users to convert all their purchases rather than letting them choose the ones they want is completely ridiculous.
While I think it's good that Apple and the labels have worked out their differences, I'm still finding much to be skeptical about. The lowering of back catalog prices is good (assuming it happens,) but I fear the trend is going to be aimed more at raising the price on new releases. And while the option to upgrade is nice, forcing consumers to upgrade everything is not, especially considering they'll have almost paid double for back catalog items once the price drops happen.
Of course, as long as people's old purchased tracks still play, I doubt many are going to care about any of this anyway. And, until new release prices go up, I'd imagine most iTunes Music Store users will continue to make purchases, not really even aware of the changes.
First off, it's a good thing that Apple and the rest of the majors finally got past their logjam to offer all the tracks DRM free. Nice to see Apple finally catch up with the rest of the world, even if they still are offering tracks in their proprietary AAC format (no surprise) which not all media players support.
Then there's the mixed blessing of variable pricing. The way things were worded, it's implied that most of the catalog will be going to 69 cents a track. New releases are scheduled to stay at 99 cents and might go as high as $1.29 a track. I see this as a mixed blessing at best.
The lower price on the back catalog only makes sense, but the higher price on new releases strikes me as an attempt to break the 99 cents standard, which the majors have been trying to do for ages. We'll see if this higher price rolls out in Amazon and other stores. Since Apple is going to be at a disadvantage here if everyone else is selling new tracks thirty cents cheaper, I can't imagine they'd have agreed to this unless that was in the plans.
Now, like last time, Apple is making the option to "upgrade" your old iTunes purchases that are now iTunes Plus...for a fee. That fee is 30 cents a track. Although this may affect a small number of people, this is the part of the plan that really irritates me.
OK, I know there's no upgrades given or implied with iTunes Music Store purchases. I get that. However, there is a prescient for free upgrades. When some of the other stores converted from DRM encoded WMA files to mp3, users were given tracks in the new formats. To be fair, there's a slight difference here; the WMA files would be useless once the DRM servers were turned off. But, that was a risk the user was expected to assume, yet after the outcry, they were switched over for free as an act of goodwill.
Let's look at the money here. Assuming you paid 99 cents a track, adding the 30 cents upgrade puts you at $1.29. Now, we've also learned that most of the catalog is supposed to drop to 69 cents. If you upgrade your tracks, you've just about paid double for them, based on the information that back catalog is going to drop in price.
The most infuriating thing is that, once again, the upgrades are presented in an "all or nothing" form. Meaning, to upgrade that out of print Quincy Jones album I really like, I'm also going to have to pay 30 cents a pop to upgrade dozens of tracks don't want. While I can at least see where the upgrade fee is coming from, forcing users to convert all their purchases rather than letting them choose the ones they want is completely ridiculous.
While I think it's good that Apple and the labels have worked out their differences, I'm still finding much to be skeptical about. The lowering of back catalog prices is good (assuming it happens,) but I fear the trend is going to be aimed more at raising the price on new releases. And while the option to upgrade is nice, forcing consumers to upgrade everything is not, especially considering they'll have almost paid double for back catalog items once the price drops happen.
Of course, as long as people's old purchased tracks still play, I doubt many are going to care about any of this anyway. And, until new release prices go up, I'd imagine most iTunes Music Store users will continue to make purchases, not really even aware of the changes.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
iTunes to add subscription service?
Usually I don't pay much attention to Apple rumors, but this one caught my eye. According to the Financial Times, Apple is in talks (with whom?) to add an "all you can eat" subscription service to the cost of a new iPod. What I've seen on the article (it's hidden behind a subscriber login,) it seems they would do something similar to the Nokia/Universal deal.
Now, I think i've mentioned it before, but I'm a big supporter of the subscription music thing. Well, at least I'm a supporter in principal because as of yet, I haven't been able to take advantage of one of the few in operation. And this leads me to the criticisms that people always trot out when you bring up subscription bases music services and why I think they're off the mark.
One of my favorites is the ever popular "it's doesn't work/it's a failed business model." This implies that there has been some large scale subscription music service out there that people just don't want a part of. Well, there are two companies offering such a thing, Napster and Rhapsody. Both of them only offer tracks as protected Windows Media, which won't work on the iPod (or Microsoft's own Zune.) So, is it really fair to declare the whole idea a failure when the only companies to try it have made their product incompatible with the most popular music player out there (and completely incompatible with an entire computer operating system as well.)
Then there's the "people want to own, not rent, their music" crowd. Sure, there's a lot of people who feel that way. For many things, I agree with them. But, I think the reality of the current music biz doesn't play this one out. Sales are dropping. Used CD are glutting the market. People are still downloading music though.
OK, I'm one of those people who doesn't equate downloading with owning the music, especially when it's DRM laden. To my eyes, if people really cared that much about owning the music, CD sales would still be climbing, not falling. People wouldn't be ripping and tossing their CD collections. I just don't think it's all that important for most people to "own" their music as long as they have access to it, which is what the subscription thing is really about.
And let's take a look as the kind of stuff people are buying. Something like fifty skadillion people downloaded "Crank That." How many of those people do you thing really feel the need to own that one? How many will want to hear it five years from now? This time next year, I guarantee that CD will be clogging used bins.
Now, let's say those people were offered a chance to download that on a subscription basis. They could listen to it as much as they wanted as long as they were paid up, and they could listen to millions of other songs too. When they were sick of Solja Boy, that track disappears and they never have to think about it again. Unless they want to hear it and it's just a click away.
I think the people making this argument are also creating a false dichotomy. The existence of subscription based music service does not mean CDs are going to disappear. I'm sure the music industry will be more than happy to accommodate, for an additional fee, those who wish to "own" all the Solja Boys and Nicklebacks and whatever else. As I understand, even Napster and Rhapsody's subscriptions allow one to purchase tracks if they want.
Now, there are a few things I think are valid. The big one is who is making money off this and where it is going. I'm already skeptical about how much money actually goes back to the artists in the current download system. If things change to a one time fee of $20 - $80 (as the Times article mentions,) how is anyone making anything out of this? Specifically, how does that filter to the artists actually making the music? My guess is, like the RIAA settlements, it doesn't.
And when the industry is moaning about lost profit etc., doesn't turning over the keys to the shop for a one-time payout (and a small one at that) seem counterintuitive? Far be it for me to cry for the major labels, but I find it curious they would even consider something like this when it seems like every other day we hear about how in the crapper they are. (Of course, business decisions like this might have something to do with it.)
The other thing that I think needs to be addressed is, will this be optional? Let's say you are someone who really has no interest in downloading stuff and you're only planning to use your iPod for your own rips. Why should you be charged for a service you'll never use? (Let's face it, the Times article makes it sound like Apple is paying for this, but we all know it will come back to the consumer. Apple is not a charity and they don't need to take a loss to add something like this, even though I think it would totally decimate the competition if they could pull it off.)
So there's my take on this whole thing. As a consumer and music fan, I think it's a great idea, if they can make it work. As a musician, I'm a little concerned about following the money.
Now, I think i've mentioned it before, but I'm a big supporter of the subscription music thing. Well, at least I'm a supporter in principal because as of yet, I haven't been able to take advantage of one of the few in operation. And this leads me to the criticisms that people always trot out when you bring up subscription bases music services and why I think they're off the mark.
One of my favorites is the ever popular "it's doesn't work/it's a failed business model." This implies that there has been some large scale subscription music service out there that people just don't want a part of. Well, there are two companies offering such a thing, Napster and Rhapsody. Both of them only offer tracks as protected Windows Media, which won't work on the iPod (or Microsoft's own Zune.) So, is it really fair to declare the whole idea a failure when the only companies to try it have made their product incompatible with the most popular music player out there (and completely incompatible with an entire computer operating system as well.)
Then there's the "people want to own, not rent, their music" crowd. Sure, there's a lot of people who feel that way. For many things, I agree with them. But, I think the reality of the current music biz doesn't play this one out. Sales are dropping. Used CD are glutting the market. People are still downloading music though.
OK, I'm one of those people who doesn't equate downloading with owning the music, especially when it's DRM laden. To my eyes, if people really cared that much about owning the music, CD sales would still be climbing, not falling. People wouldn't be ripping and tossing their CD collections. I just don't think it's all that important for most people to "own" their music as long as they have access to it, which is what the subscription thing is really about.
And let's take a look as the kind of stuff people are buying. Something like fifty skadillion people downloaded "Crank That." How many of those people do you thing really feel the need to own that one? How many will want to hear it five years from now? This time next year, I guarantee that CD will be clogging used bins.
Now, let's say those people were offered a chance to download that on a subscription basis. They could listen to it as much as they wanted as long as they were paid up, and they could listen to millions of other songs too. When they were sick of Solja Boy, that track disappears and they never have to think about it again. Unless they want to hear it and it's just a click away.
I think the people making this argument are also creating a false dichotomy. The existence of subscription based music service does not mean CDs are going to disappear. I'm sure the music industry will be more than happy to accommodate, for an additional fee, those who wish to "own" all the Solja Boys and Nicklebacks and whatever else. As I understand, even Napster and Rhapsody's subscriptions allow one to purchase tracks if they want.
Now, there are a few things I think are valid. The big one is who is making money off this and where it is going. I'm already skeptical about how much money actually goes back to the artists in the current download system. If things change to a one time fee of $20 - $80 (as the Times article mentions,) how is anyone making anything out of this? Specifically, how does that filter to the artists actually making the music? My guess is, like the RIAA settlements, it doesn't.
And when the industry is moaning about lost profit etc., doesn't turning over the keys to the shop for a one-time payout (and a small one at that) seem counterintuitive? Far be it for me to cry for the major labels, but I find it curious they would even consider something like this when it seems like every other day we hear about how in the crapper they are. (Of course, business decisions like this might have something to do with it.)
The other thing that I think needs to be addressed is, will this be optional? Let's say you are someone who really has no interest in downloading stuff and you're only planning to use your iPod for your own rips. Why should you be charged for a service you'll never use? (Let's face it, the Times article makes it sound like Apple is paying for this, but we all know it will come back to the consumer. Apple is not a charity and they don't need to take a loss to add something like this, even though I think it would totally decimate the competition if they could pull it off.)
So there's my take on this whole thing. As a consumer and music fan, I think it's a great idea, if they can make it work. As a musician, I'm a little concerned about following the money.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
The EMI/iTunes Thing.
I'm sure you've heard about it by now, but if not, EMI is going to be the first label selling music without rights restricting DRM on the iTunes music store. They're also finally bumping the bit rate up to a more acceptable (but still not idea, that would be Apple Lossless or equal) bit rate. Oh, and they're charging you 30 cents more a track for the privilege.
In this deal, EMI gets to look cutting edge for being the first of the big four to lose DRM and Steve Jobs gets to look like the knight in shining armor because he gave this big anti-DRM speech recently. While I agree losing DRM is a win for consumers, I think when you look at this deal, it has a lot less to do with pleasing consumers and a lot more with business as usual.
Take Jobs for instance. Though there's a bit of revisionist history at work, Apple wasn't always anti-DRM. In fact, they've told labels who specifically asked to sell DRM-free music they couldn't. Why did this guy who, up 'till recently, had no problem with right restricting software suddenly have a change of heart?
Sure, it's possible Steve's had a change of heart. However, I think it might have something to do with not wanting to fight for DRM all over Europe. Norway already has smacked FairPlay down, Italy is going that way too. Same with France and Germany.
Pardon me for being cynical, but you have something that ties users to your specific product (and Jobs' figures on iTunes music store purchases vs. iPod ownership are really skewed) why you'd want to voluntary change that, I could not imagine. The fact that Jobs, who is a majority shareholder in Disney, hasn't come out against video DRM, and is clearly in a position to do something about that from both sides of the purchasing chain, also makes me skeptical.
As for EMI, here's where people are missing the big picture. It doesn't cost them any extra to offer higher bit rate, non-DRM tracks, but they're getting 30 cents more a pop. The record industry has been trying for quite a while to charge more at the iTunes music store, but up until now Jobs has said no.
Now Jobs is in a bit of a bind over this DRM thing, which up to know has worked out well for Apple and the industry. Apple needs to ditch the DRM, the industry wants to charge more and we end up where we are now. A win/win for Apple and EMI. A partial victory for consumers.
In this deal, EMI gets to look cutting edge for being the first of the big four to lose DRM and Steve Jobs gets to look like the knight in shining armor because he gave this big anti-DRM speech recently. While I agree losing DRM is a win for consumers, I think when you look at this deal, it has a lot less to do with pleasing consumers and a lot more with business as usual.
Take Jobs for instance. Though there's a bit of revisionist history at work, Apple wasn't always anti-DRM. In fact, they've told labels who specifically asked to sell DRM-free music they couldn't. Why did this guy who, up 'till recently, had no problem with right restricting software suddenly have a change of heart?
Sure, it's possible Steve's had a change of heart. However, I think it might have something to do with not wanting to fight for DRM all over Europe. Norway already has smacked FairPlay down, Italy is going that way too. Same with France and Germany.
Pardon me for being cynical, but you have something that ties users to your specific product (and Jobs' figures on iTunes music store purchases vs. iPod ownership are really skewed) why you'd want to voluntary change that, I could not imagine. The fact that Jobs, who is a majority shareholder in Disney, hasn't come out against video DRM, and is clearly in a position to do something about that from both sides of the purchasing chain, also makes me skeptical.
As for EMI, here's where people are missing the big picture. It doesn't cost them any extra to offer higher bit rate, non-DRM tracks, but they're getting 30 cents more a pop. The record industry has been trying for quite a while to charge more at the iTunes music store, but up until now Jobs has said no.
Now Jobs is in a bit of a bind over this DRM thing, which up to know has worked out well for Apple and the industry. Apple needs to ditch the DRM, the industry wants to charge more and we end up where we are now. A win/win for Apple and EMI. A partial victory for consumers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
